\u201cThe deputy here acknowledges that prior to the canine alert on the vehicle and his unrelated questioning of Defendant and Weeks, he only had an undefined suspicion that something was not quite right. He had no specific articulable suspicion\u2014only a vague hunch. The vagueness of his hunch is understandable. All he knew was that the driver had followed another vehicle too closely, appeared to change lanes abruptly, and that both the driver and the passenger appeared nervous. These observations are simply insufficient to warrant an extension of a routine traffic stop to allow for questioning unrelated to the traffic offense and to permit a drug dog to sniff the car.\u201d But, tossing the drugs in flight was a waiver of any reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Hickson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177626 (M.D. Ga. December 18, 2013),* reconsideration denied 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18101 (M.D. Ga. February 13, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Officers had exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry into defendant\u2019s apartment. He was armed and believed to have just been involved in a robbery, and there was a small child inside. United States v. Evans<\/a>, 549 Fed. Appx. 397 (6th Cir. 2013).<\/p>\n 2255 can\u2019t be used to reargue the case, including the suppression motion. \u201cBecause both trial and appellate counsel did advance the type of arguments Gonzales complains about in this \u00a7 2255 proceeding, this ineffectiveness claim fails.\u201d United States v. Gonzales, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178082 (S.D. Tex. October 28, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading